Posted: Sat, 14th Jun 2008, 8:20pm
Post 1 of 38
Okay I don't know who went to see this movie, but for anyone who hasn't and wants to see this movie all I have to say is don't go. To me it was a big thing about global warming and how the earth was pissed of at people damaging the planet. But thats just my own opinion.
Posted: Sat, 14th Jun 2008, 8:32pm
Post 2 of 38
Thanks for the spoiler warning.
Posted: Sat, 14th Jun 2008, 8:44pm
Post 3 of 38
Evman, they even say that in the reviews, that it's a plant thing.
'Tis not the twist, my friend. The real twist is that 'the happening' of widespread suicide is something that they thought was worldwide, but was only limited to the northeastern United States. Then, almost as quickly as it 'happened!!!!!' it stops. And everything goes back to normal, sans a wrist-cut Mark Ruffalo and a bunch of dead New Yorkers. Oh, but after it's over, people in Paris, France start killing themselves, too. Yeah.
The movie is too much of a stretch for me. Signs and Unbreakable worked because they were offbeat and unsubstantiated enough to make the suspension of disbelief (aliens, superhuman powers) work. Lady in the Water worked because it was full on fantasy, and I didn't know what to think. The Happening is just like: if you lose your inhibitions, you'll automatically violently kill yourself. This is lame because of two things: a.Smallville did it YEARS ago, and b.it semantically makes no sense. Even suicidal paranoid schizophrenics don't just automatically kill themselves. Come on.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jun 2008, 3:15am
Post 4 of 38
I am literally the only person on the face of the world who liked this movie. Finally, The Ring Two can have some company.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jun 2008, 9:19am
Post 5 of 38
Evman wrote:Thanks for the spoiler warning.
Agreed!!! a little heads up would have been nice.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jun 2008, 11:37pm
Post 6 of 38
Oh, you dumbass. I'm glad I didn't read everything in your post, Joecool. I'm seeing it Tuesday. I'll enjoy it.
Posted: Sun, 15th Jun 2008, 11:40pm
Post 7 of 38
ben3308 wrote:Evman, they even say that in the reviews, that it's a plant thing.
Definitely don't care, cause I haven't read the reviews either.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 12:06am
Post 8 of 38
Definitely don't care, cause I haven't read the reviews either.
ben3308 wrote:Evman, they even say that in the reviews, that it's a plant thing.
Yeah, seriously. Both Signs and The Village were ruined for me because some idiot told me the ending. I'm bold enough to say that both of those movies would be in my top 50 list of movies if I saw them without expecting anything.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 6:31am
Post 9 of 38
Waser wrote:I am literally the only person on the face of the world who liked this movie. Finally, The Ring Two can have some company.
I loved this movie
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 5:26pm
Post 10 of 38
Fill wrote:I'm bold enough to say that both of those movies would be in my top 50 list of movies if I saw them without expecting anything.
I thought The Village was really good... but I can't believe that I'm bold enough to say that I though Signs was terrible. The dialog was written terribly (it got pretty ridiculous at times), the acting was bad except for Mel Gibson's, the aliens looked ridiculously fake, and the whole movie just seemed a little weird and off.
Well.... bring on the flood of posts from people who liked this movie saying how it's so great.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:13pm
Post 11 of 38
"Swing away, Merrill. Swing away."
That is by far one of the coolest and most well-written climax points I've seen in a movie. I remember thinking that if no other part of the movie was that great, that scene/series-of-scenes made up for it.
Signs is one of my favorite movies. I won't argue that you
didn't like it, as that would be ridiculous. But I don't see what was terrible with the dialogue
of the writing or the acting from the other main characters. I can understand not liking the premise/outline (aliens allergic to water, mainly water planet, etc.) but the dialogue and acting?
Aside from the cinematography and music the dialogue and acting between Phoenix and Gibson is some of the best ever.
Last edited Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:26pm; edited 1 times in total.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:19pm
Post 12 of 38
I might go catch "The Happening" on DVD seeing it's another Shyamalan, if I really have nothing better to do.
Shame, his first two movies started so well and his last 3 were bad to terrible. "Lady in the water" and "the village" were just bad, "signs" is on my top worst films I've seen in a cinema list, right next to "Episode 2".
That track record entirely loses my interest in this until Shyamalan makes a half decent movie again.
Thanks for spoilering anyhow.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:23pm
Post 13 of 38
Hmm, not quite sure why there are so many Signs haters. I thought it was one of his best, if not my favorite movie of his.
And that's not just because it takes place right where I live, was filmed where I live, but somehow looks nothing like where I live, instead making our area look like a haven for a bunch of country bumpkins.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:30pm
Post 14 of 38
I agree. Even searching for that clip on YouTube reminded me of how ridiculous well-timed and suspenseful the whole thing was; and how triumphant the ending is.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:32pm
Post 15 of 38
Sollthar wrote:"signs" is on my top worst films I've seen in a cinema list
Thank you, Sollthar!
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:44pm
Post 16 of 38
not quite sure why there are so many Signs haters
Probably because the film was boring, the writing was totally lame and the oh so expected "climax" was so ridiculous the cinema I was in laughed pretty hard - I myself just shook my head and sobbed. Plus it had an annoying religious undertone the whole time, which made the whole thing even more unbearable - but the terrible ending conclusion made excellent fun of that, if even not deliberate. Which is probably the only thing I liked about that movie apart from James Newton-Howards music, which is always solid at it's worst.
The village was simply a completely ridicolous non-event for me and lady in the water was weird, but bearable because Paul Giammati does an incredible job in it.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:51pm
Post 17 of 38
I thought Signs definitely got better near the ending, but the ending climax still wasn't really any good at all. And the terrible fake looking alien didn't help matters.
Also, Sollthar, I agree with you about the music. It was probably the films strongest point, not that it was some incredible score like Star Wars or anything, but it was good, unlike the rest of the movie, which ranged from bad to horrible throughout.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 7:59pm
Post 18 of 38
Sollthar wrote:Plus it had an annoying religious undertone the whole time, which made the whole thing even more unbearable
You mean the well-written, layered tone of self-determination and faith in times of tragedy or confusion that speaks to, well, millions of people? Oh, how unbearable
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 8:21pm
Post 19 of 38
You mean the well-written, layered tone of self-determination and faith in times of tragedy or confusion that speaks to, well, millions of people?
Uhuh, that's the one. Except for the word "well-written".
Oh, how unbearable.
I appreciate the sympathy. It was a difficult thing to watch. But it ended eventually and I got through it.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 9:19pm
Post 20 of 38
Signs was awesome. I still remember the terrified feeling I had that night after leaving the theater. It stuck with me for the longest time. Not only is it my favorite M. Night movie, but is probably on my top 10 favorite movies of all time.
If you don't like his style stop watching his movies.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 9:21pm
Post 21 of 38
I think that's exactly what I said I'll do.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 9:58pm
Post 22 of 38
I haven't seen this movie, but it doesn't sound very interesting to me. The movie I really wanted to see was The Strangers.
Posted: Mon, 16th Jun 2008, 11:41pm
Post 23 of 38
Doing a little perusing on YouTube, I remembered how much I like M. Night. Not just for the writing or direction, but the whole way his stories are told. They aren't always restrained, but they aren't in-your-face until it is called for.
Also, I think that 'Unbreakable' is my favorite, simply because I like the characters and cast the most- and it has some of the most solid, non-Hollywood-looking technicals in any recent movie. The ending, which many people complained about not being up to par with the 'Sixth Sense'; I loved. Especially the music and editing, very much the way I like to edit and similar to the music I like to use, which I think is cool. In some scenes, it's outright amazing.
For anyone who hasn't seen Unbreakable, see it. If you want to watch the ending, here it is
"They called me Mr. Glass."
Posted: Tue, 17th Jun 2008, 4:02pm
Post 24 of 38
Well, I'm kind of bringing this even more off topic, but here goes anyway.
I like many of M. Night's movies (no, I'm not going to try to spell his last name) like The Villiage, The Sixth Sense, and Unbreakable. They seem to take an established genre and remake it in a more subtle, character-driven way. But Signs was terrible.
Maybe if the writing and acting were good, I would have been able to make it past the fact that it didn't creep me out, or make me laugh, or cry, or whatever (and it didn't seem until the very end like it could decide which one of those it was going for). But besides Mel Gibson, the acting was terrible, especially that annoying boy and the military recruiting guy that Gibson's brother went to see. And the writing wasn't any good either. The premise seemed kind of rediculous in the first place, and then the added layer of religious philosophy (which, although I might not agree with, I can live with in a movie if it's pulled off well) was dry and muddled as well.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jun 2008, 4:21pm
Post 25 of 38
Bad acting besides Mel Gibson. Sigh.
Joaquin Phoenix, anyone? Maybe Rory Culkin or Abigail Breslin? (who are both great as the kids in Signs, IMO)
Also, I think the strongest part of the film is it's religious pseudo-philosophical undertones. That, and it's a little ridiculous to slam something as bad writing for using such a device. In fact, it is harder to add those 'layered' undertones, and it's something generally found in good writing.
But as for the undertones. I loved them. Why? Because they aren't specified to a specific religion and don't dance around vague words, but instead use the fears and silence of the movie to show how despondent people can be when they lose understanding or meaning; of any kind for that matter. And I think that was the real intent of M. Night and message of Signs, a prevailing sense of hope over desperation- finding purpose and faith. And I liked it. It reminded me of a much, much, much more restrained and (a little bit) not-as-powerful feeling of The Shawshank Redemption.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jun 2008, 5:07pm
Post 26 of 38
I personally thought Unbreakable was a piece of crap.
I didn't watch lady in the water.
Someone told me the ending to The Sixth Sense before I saw it.
Signs was a great Theater experience, despite the plot holes.
The Village was an awful theater experience, and There was really only two great moments in the film.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jun 2008, 6:16pm
Post 27 of 38
Atom wrote:Also, I think the strongest part of the film is it's religious pseudo-philosophical undertones. That, and it's a little ridiculous to slam something as bad writing for using such a device. In fact, it is harder to add those 'layered' undertones, and it's something generally found in good writing.
Was that directed at me or Sollthar? If it was directed at me, then you don't get what I said: I don't mind philosophical undertones period, and usually they are found in good writing. But I just don't think they pulled it off well in Signs.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jun 2008, 7:25pm
Post 28 of 38
Back on Topic...
I just saw this movie a few days ago, I wasn't crazy about it, but it wasn't terrible. I think the whole plant idea was cool, and I liked the little science bits of how they release chemicals to attract insects and what not. I liked the message of Global Warming, I thought it was a great way to present it. I hated how they presented the first suicides (jumping off buildings, police officer shooting himself), they weren't very dramatic. They way they were presented made me just feel like "Oh, uhh... that sucks." I also didn't like the relationship between Wahlberg and the math teacher. I couldn't quite figure out if they were best friends or if they didn't really like each other. The whole scene with the old lady towards the end was very creepy. I throughly enjoyed that whole sequence. Overall, I just felt like the actors weren't as concerned as I thought they would be. I don't know about you guys, but if I found out that a blade of grass could force me to commit suicide, I'd be a bit more scared. Although that sounds negative, I did enjoy parts of it.
It's not a must see, but good for a rental when it comes out. 3/5.
Posted: Mon, 23rd Jun 2008, 3:21pm
Post 29 of 38
I saw it last night.
Let me say up front that I am a fan of what M.Night Shyamalan is TRYING to do overall and I think he has a great sense of pacing, composition, and in general he let's his actors ACT- which I enjoy. BUT - and here is the big BUT. I know that he is a Rod Serling devotee (that's the old Twilight Zone shows from the 60's for you kids...
) and he tends to structure his stories very much the same way Rod did on the old shows. Well, I'm also a huge fan of Rod Serling (He's from Ohio (like me
- and there are lots of Ohio references in the old shows...and I really like the old shows too.) and I can usually see Shyamalan's plot devices coming from a mile away. Even "The 6th sense" didn't surprise me AT ALL when I saw it in the theater- I was already onto his game. With that said- I think, like Serling, he has storylines that really could be compacted into a half hour or one TV show format much more comfortably than the feature film format- he just doesn't have enough plot to carry his excellent (and relatively original) ideas through. He usually does a GREAT job of establishing his main characters internal and external needs and providing them with a true journey through the "horror story" and THAT is one other thing I like. I will follow an author/filmmaker/writer down any rabbit hole if I care about what happens to the person going down with me-one of the HUGE failings of the latest Indiana Jones films and pretty much all of the Episodes I-III of the Star Wars flms. This film actually kind of falls short inthat regard though because the main character with the internal need in this film is Mark Wahlberg's wife- not him! And because that need is established (her fear of commitment or being wishy-washy in her marriage)This story SHOULD have been told from HER point of view as the MAIN character. Il ike Mark Wahlberg, but I don't think he is quite strong enough to carry this type of story as the main character yet. He has come a LONG way as an actor and I think if he continues to work with stronger actors, his technique will improve. As an example- I like Joaquin Phoenix - but I see a BIG difference in him before and after SIGNS with Mel Gibson. Mel has this thing he does with his eyes and his expression where he "searches" for the dialogue and IMO Joaquin picked up on this little bit of technique and uses it quite a bit in "The Village" and has incorporated it into his own style. Every actor has their "things" Clint Eastwood has a very distinct and practiced way of holding a glass, keeping his fingers all together and NEVER blocking his eyes in a scene in which he has the glass. George Clooney has his "head down / eyes up" method of "going deeper" in his dialogue or increasing the tension. Tom Cruise has his glassy-eyed "on the verge of tears" look when he is ready to kick ass. These actors have their techniques- and Marky Mark (Wahlberg) has his furrowed brow- he needs something else.
Overall I thought the dialogue was stilted and he just explains everything up front in a huge exposition statement that I can't stand- he should have let the threat explination evolve more, provided a bit more mystery- letting us believe that maybe it was the government for awhile, and only knowing that the danger is "on the wind" before explaining it to us. And I thought the story would have been better served from the wife's point of view, but I think his choices as a film maker are always strong and he makes a good effort at turning 45 pages of plot and an interesting idea into a feature length film.
Posted: Mon, 23rd Jun 2008, 4:05pm
Post 30 of 38
I didn't like this as it was very uneventful and the script was awful. I love Shyamalan and I don't get how any of you can possibly not like Unbreakable. I can see why somebody doesn't like Signs or The Village, but I thought Unbreakable was... well, read what Atom said.
The movie was not very interesting to me. The whole, "Plants are killing us!" plot wasn't bad, but poorly presented. For example, the scene where their in the field, the wind is blowing(This is probably the worst scene in the movie), and the people in larger groups start killing themselves, the dialogue was absolutely abysmal. The survivors start saying, "What's happening? Is it the toxin?" even in the complete obviousness that it IS the toxin. I just thought the acting was... terrible, and the script was just about as bad. What really signaled this was when I compared the "we have to get out of here!" drama in this movie with Spielberg's War of The Worlds. In this movie the characters beg others to get into a van; in War of the Worlds the characters kill each other for one. The sense of fear in this movie isn't there.
Posted: Tue, 24th Jun 2008, 2:02pm
Post 31 of 38
One can not talk about crappy Shyamalan films and not mention "Unbreakable". That thing was just plain dumb. I actually thought Signs and The Village were OK-not great, but OK.
Posted: Tue, 24th Jun 2008, 2:10pm
Post 32 of 38
I love Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. Both great genre films - I'm always surprised by how many people dislike Unbreakable. It seems like a really fun superhero movie taken in a more realistic direction like some of the less mainstream comics. I've nveer quite figured out what people find so wrong with it.
Signs, however, was awful. While it had individual scenes that were great, both technically and artistically, the overall piece was very shoddy. No matter how good the rest of the film is, you simply can't have an alien species go to a water planet when they're allergic to water. You just can't. Whatever else you do with your story, that one plot element makes you look like a complete tit. A very strong case of being less than the sum of its parts.
Haven't seen his more recent films...yet.
Posted: Tue, 24th Jun 2008, 10:15pm
Post 33 of 38
So I saw this today for some reason.
Wish I hadn't.
It really was godawful.
It's a shame, because the idea of the film was awesome, but the execution of it was absolutely horrible.
I think the biggest problem was the acting. Mark Walhberg seemed like there was some joke he wasn't allowed to tell the audience the whole movie, and the other actors weren't much better.
It was lame and hokey, which is a shame considering the message Night was trying to state was an awesome and powerful one, but the movie was so godawful that no one will care about it.
Posted: Tue, 24th Jun 2008, 11:46pm
Post 34 of 38
I think this was probably the best acting in the entire film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4
Posted: Wed, 25th Jun 2008, 2:45am
Post 35 of 38
Bryce, you're absolutely right. I got chills up my spine watching that.
Posted: Wed, 25th Jun 2008, 5:36am
Post 36 of 38
Bryce007 wrote:I think this was probably the best acting in the entire film:
Can't. Stop. Laughing.
Posted: Wed, 25th Jun 2008, 6:49pm
Post 37 of 38
Right, just saw this because I needed to get some fresh air (WALKING to the cinema, not in the cinema, for anyone who sees a joke in there, like me just now).
It was very much a non-event for me.
I think the film itself had some really cool scenes. The scene at the beginning were people started falling off rooftops in particular was scary - the beginning in the park was just odd.
Having said that, some of the acting was just really really dodgy. Then again, the whole idea was very far fetched for me - probably for the actors as well. The concept was too odd for me to really get into it.
But still, the film managed some good moments where the fear and hopelessness came across, if even not as powerful as with other movies.
There was again this annoying mystic/religous "we'll never know" nonsense subtone to the film, but I guess that's what it aimed to do.
The ending however, turned the whole thing into a big "nothing" for me. What a climax... "it's just over"... they're all a big happy family now... and "oh... it happens again!"... And this man on TV goes with that exact nonsenical tone... "We'll never know!"
That reminds me of the stories I played with my lego figures when I was about 6 and tried to be really really clever.
All in all, roughly 5 / 10 I'd say
Posted: Thu, 26th Jun 2008, 2:44am
Post 38 of 38
The Happening was extremely awesome.